 | This article needs additional citations for verification .(February 2008) |
| Evidence |
|---|
| Part of the law series |
| Types of evidence |
| Relevance |
| Authentication |
| Witnesses |
| Hearsay and exceptions |
| Other common law areas |
In the law of evidence, similar fact evidence (or the similar fact principle) establishes the conditions under which factual evidence of past misconduct of the accused can be admitted at trial for the purpose of inferring that the accused committed the misconduct at issue.
In Canada, the rule is established in R. v. Handy , 164 CCC (3d) 481, 2 SCR 908 (2002):
Evidence of prior bad acts by the accused will be admissible if the prosecution satisfies the judge on a balance of probabilities that, in the context of the particular case, the probative value of the evidence in relation to a specific issue outweighs its potential prejudice and thereby justifies its reception.
Questions arise as to how the Court will measure the elements of this rule:
i) What constitutes a prior act of misconduct?
ii) Why does the Court speak of evidence in relation to a 'specific issue'?
iii) How is probative value determined?
The 2001 trial of Roy Whiting may have influenced the decision to change the law in England and Wales (R v Handy continues to govern the law in Canada). [1] These changes were brought into force by the 'Bad Character' provisions of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (sections 98 to 113). Although preceding these changes, Rosemary West's 1995 trial has also been cited as an example where similar fact evidence was crucial to the prosecution case. [2]
Similar fact evidence can be used even if the original "misconduct" could not be prosecuted due to duress or the offender's youth. In a case of a Devon family imprisoned in 1998, one of the defendants appealed his conviction for raping his sister at the age of 16, suggesting it was unlikely that she would not complain or seek help. It was held that the evidence that his father had coerced him into sexual acts with his other sisters as a child was similar fact evidence and, in addition to the systematic long-term sexual activity and abuse within the family, sufficient to explain why he felt that he could get away with abusing her and knew she could not rely on her family for protection; his appeal failed. [R v TM, 2000, 2 Cr App 266]
In New Zealand, the rules regarding similar fact evidence are codified by section 43 of the Evidence Act 2006.
Under Scots law, this is covered by the well-established use of the Moorov Doctrine.
Under Rule 404 of the United States Federal Rules of Evidence, evidence of a person's character or character trait is not admissible to prove that on a particular occasion the person acted in accordance with the character or trait. Additionally, evidence of a crime, wrong, or other act is not admissible to prove a person's character in order to show that on a particular occasion the person acted in accordance with the character. This evidence may be admissible for another purpose, such as proving motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, absence of mistake, or lack of accident.
First adopted in 1975, the Federal Rules of Evidence codify the evidence law that applies in United States federal courts. In addition, many states in the United States have either adopted the Federal Rules of Evidence, with or without local variations, or have revised their own evidence rules or codes to at least partially follow the federal rules.
Character evidence is a term used in the law of evidence to describe any testimony or document submitted for the purpose of proving that a person acted in a particular way on a particular occasion based on the character or disposition of that person. In the United States, Federal Rule of Evidence 404 maps out its permissible and prohibited uses in trials. Three factors typically determine the admissibility of character evidence:
The law of evidence, also known as the rules of evidence, encompasses the rules and legal principles that govern the proof of facts in a legal proceeding. These rules determine what evidence must or must not be considered by the trier of fact in reaching its decision. The trier of fact is a judge in bench trials, or the jury in any cases involving a jury. The law of evidence is also concerned with the quantum (amount), quality, and type of proof needed to prevail in litigation. The rules vary depending upon whether the venue is a criminal court, civil court, or family court, and they vary by jurisdiction.
Witness impeachment, in the law of evidence of the United States, is the process of calling into question the credibility of an individual testifying in a trial. The Federal Rules of Evidence contain the rules governing impeachment in US federal courts.
Summary jurisdiction, in the widest sense of the phrase, in English law includes the power asserted by courts of record to deal brevi manu with contempts of court without the intervention of a jury. Probably the power was originally exercisable only when the fact was notorious, i.e. done in presence of the court. But it has long been exercised as to extra curial contempts.
Makin v Attorney General for New South Wales is a famous decision of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council where the modern common law rule of similar fact evidence originated.
The criminal law of Canada is under the exclusive legislative jurisdiction of the Parliament of Canada. The power to enact criminal law is derived from section 91(27) of the Constitution Act, 1867. Most criminal laws have been codified in the Criminal Code, as well as the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, Youth Criminal Justice Act and several other peripheral statutes.
The Criminal Justice Act 2003 is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. It is a wide-ranging measure introduced to modernise many areas of the criminal justice system in England and Wales and, to a lesser extent, in Scotland and Northern Ireland. Large portions of the act were repealed and replaced by the Sentencing Act 2020.
Actual innocence is a special standard of review in legal cases to prove that a charged defendant did not commit the crimes that they were accused of, which is often applied by appellate courts to prevent a miscarriage of justice.
R v Handy, [2002] 2 S.C.R. 908, 2002 SCC 56, is the leading Supreme Court of Canada decision on similar fact evidence. The Court proposed what is known as the Handy test for determining whether past occurrences that resemble the crime can be admitted as evidence.
Hearsay, in a legal forum, is an out-of-court statement which is being offered in court for the truth of what was asserted. In most courts, hearsay evidence is inadmissible unless an exception to the hearsay rule applies.
A rape shield law is a law that limits the ability to introduce evidence or cross-examine rape complainants about their past sexual behaviour. The term also refers to a law that prohibits the publication of the identity of an alleged rape victim.
The hearsay provisions of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 reformed the common law relating to the admissibility of hearsay evidence in criminal proceedings begun on or after 4 April 2005.
Huddleston v. United States, 485 U.S. 681 (1988), was a case in which the United States Supreme Court held that before admitting evidence of extrinsic acts under Rule 404(b) of the Federal Rules of Evidence, federal courts should assess the evidence's sufficiency under Federal Rule of Evidence 104(b). Under 104(b), "[w]hen the relevancy of evidence depends upon the fulfillment of a condition of fact, the court shall admit it upon, or subject to, the introduction of evidence sufficient to support a finding of the fulfillment of the condition."
The Criminal Justice Act 2003 applicable in England and Wales, and to a lesser extent Scotland and Northern Ireland, implemented fundamental changes to the admissibility of evidence relating to character, in respect to defendants and others. The Act is far-reaching, providing for the admissibility of previous convictions in support of a propensity to commit like-offences and untruthfulness. Common law rules in relation to the admissibility of bad character evidence have been abolished, with the existence of one exception.
Relevance, in the common law of evidence, is the tendency of a given item of evidence to prove or disprove one of the legal elements of the case, or to have probative value to make one of the elements of the case likelier or not. Probative is a term used in law to signify "tending to prove". Probative evidence "seeks the truth". Generally in law, evidence that is not probative is inadmissible and the rules of evidence permit it to be excluded from a proceeding or stricken from the record "if objected to by opposing counsel". A balancing test may come into the picture if the value of the evidence needs to be weighed versus its prejudicial nature.
The South African law of evidence forms part of the adjectival or procedural law of that country. It is based on English common law.
O'Brien v Chief Constable of South Wales Police [2005] UKHL 26 was an English evidence law decision of the House of Lords which held that evidence of previous bad behaviour, known as similar fact evidence, may be admitted in civil case proceedings if it is probative of a relevant matter.
Mahomed v R [2011] NZSC 52 was a case in the Supreme Court of New Zealand concerning the admissibility of propensity evidence against defendants facing criminal prosecution.